Monday, April 18, 2011

Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All

Sometimes the Only Way to Move a Discussion to a New Post is to Move the Last Few Comments in a Thread, so here is the Voting Third Party and Not Voting at all discussion from a Previous Comment Thread.  Please Continue the Conversation here.  I'll be Submitting my Own Thoughts in the Comment Area Soon.

Lista said...
On a more Positive Note, Voting for Third Party Candidates is Better than not Voting at all cause at Least you are Making some Kind of a Political Statement with your Vote.
soapster said...
And I never said that you said that I did endorse or sanction Obama. As to your second point, I do all I can so the adage doesn't apply to me.  I won't be guilted into bearing culpability for the immoral actions of political leaders that I didn't vote for.
soapster said...
Not voting makes a political statement as well, Lista.  I've done it countless times.
Lista said...
"Simply because I might opt to vote 3rd party (as I did in the 2008 presidential election) does not imply that I endorse or sanction the actions or policies of Barack Obama.  To infer or suggest otherwise, as you've done, is laughable." I did not even "Imply, Infer or Suggest" that you Endorsed or Sanctioned" anything, Soap. The Political Statement of not Voting is More Vague, since there are some who do so Out of Apathy and there is no Way to Separate Your Political Statement from theirs.
dmarks said...
Yeah, the statement of not voting ends up meaning "whatever happens, I am fine with the result".
soapster said...
Let that be your interpretation, dmarks. By opting for the lesser of two evils, you are still sanctioning evil. Would you rather die by firing squad or would you rather die of starvation?  Rationalize it however you wish. I myself desire to live and if death be imminent then let it come to pass.  But I will not sanction it.
Lista said...
Well, I Tend to Agree with Dmarks.  What you said, Soap, is sort of a Black and White Form of Thinking.  In this case, Black and White, Meaning Only Two Options or It's either One Way or the Other, It's either Evil or it is not. How About if we Discard the Word Evil and say that it is a lot of what you do not like, or a little Less of what you do not Like?  To Say that it is Either Evil or it is not, is to Deny the Reality that One Undesirable can be Considerably Worse than Another Undesirable.  Calling that which is Undesirable Evil, though, is Making it into an Issue of Morality, when in Reality Some of it is just an Issue of Preference. She Smiles.  Boy, that might be a Can of Worms and we are Close to 50 Comments on this Comment Thread.  Hopefully, I'll have the Time to do another Post Over the Weekend so that this Discussion can Continue on a New Comment Thread.
Lista said...
Perhaps where we are Disagreeing, Soap, is in Relation to the Idea that a Vote Motivated by Compromise is a Form of Endorsing and Sanctioning.  I Do not Think that it is.
dmarks said...
Soap, it is not interpretation.  If you sit out an election, you are giving the choices entirely to others.
soapster said...
And if you don't sit out and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you want or desire, you're still giving choices to others. I know black and white makes you squirm in your seat, Lista, but that's just something you're going to have to deal with on your own. If one candidate is promising Liver and Onions and the other Tofu, while Tofu might be preferable to me over Liver and Onions, I want spaghetti and I'll work towards getting spaghetti. If my efforts to do so fail, I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both and whether I vote for one over the other or not, in the final analysis, I'm going to end up with something I don't want. Why would I sanction it with a vote of approval???  It's moronic.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics

This is the Second Half of Summary of an Earlier Long Comment ThreadThe First Half  was about Relationship Analogies and Two Parties Walking  to the Middle of a Bridge.  This is Summarized in the next Post DownThe Second Half of that Comment Thread, which is Summarized Below, is more About Politics, as well as the Definitions of Words.

In the 24th Comment (April 12, 10:47 AM), I Encouraged People to Return the Discussion to Politics and they did.  My April 12, 4:31 PM Comment was Sort of Transitional.  I Explained how the Relationship Between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage and that is why the Earlier Compromise Analogies are not Irrelevant.  In Both Marriage and also Politics, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion.  Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.

From this Point, we Talked about Concepts such as Extremes, Rewards and Bribes, Negotiation and Compromise, Voting Third Party, not Voting at All, Etc.

It's too Hard to Summarize all of this, so I'm just Going to Repeat a Few Definitions.

From BB-Idaho;
Business Psychology States:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser.  If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value.  This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." (BB-Idaho, April 9, 4:02 PM)
Compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands." 
Negotiate is a verb:
"'To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement' -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating."
Bribe is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." (BB-Idaho, April 13, 3:59 PM)

From the Soapster;
"When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.

"When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent."
(Soapster, April 13, 11:20 AM)

Now From Me;
I Think I Like BB's First Definition of Compromise Best.  I Only Added to it in One of my Comments that the Words "Equivalent Value" should be Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", since so much of what Needs to be Compromised is Subjective. (Lista, April 13, 10:17 AM)

Soapster's Statements  were more of a Description than a Definition and in my Next Couple of Comments that Followed his, I said...
Huh?  Interesting.  I Wonder where you Got that Definition.  Another Way of Saying the Same Thing is that we Should Never Compromise Our Fundamental Premise, but we Can Compromise Other Things that do not Hinder Our Fundamental Premise.  The Only Difference Between what I said and what you said, Soap, is the Definition of the Word Compromise.
Actually, Soap, Your Second Sentence Sounds more Like a Sell Out, than a Compromise.   That is Walking all the Way Across the Bridge, when your Opponent is not Even Willing to Come 1/4 of the Way Across the Bridge and I have Stated Very Plainly that there is Absolutely no Valid Reason for Doing that.
Towards the End, we got Talking about Voting Third Party.  If you would Like to Respond to that, then just Start Reading the Comments from here;  (Soapster, April 14,5:58 AM)

More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Relationship Analogies

Well, the Previous Comment Thread is Getting Long, so it is Time to Post Again.  Even trying to Summarize what is on the Previous Comment Thread has Led Up to a Rather Long Post, so I've Decided to Split it in Half.

If you have been Following the Previous Thread, you will Realize that Starting from the Third Comment (April 8, 9:42 PM) on Down to the 24th (April 12, 10:47 AM), we were discussing Analogies Relating to Compromise and Walking to the Middle of a Bridge, but Griper insisted that Bridges are Built for the Purpose of Getting us from One Side to the Other and are therefore not a Good Compromise Analogy.  Eventually, a Platform was Added to the Middle of the Bridge with Stairs to the Bottom of the Canyon and a Helicopter Pad on Top of it (April 9, 2:02 PM).  lol.

Various Different Analogies were Presented.  Including Bridges over Canyons (April 9, 12:43 AM), over Streams (April 9, 2:02 PM), and Over a Stream at the End of a Lake (April 12, 12:54 AM).  The Last of these was Actually a Dock, from which the Compromisers could Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake.  Not all Bridges are the Same, just as not all Situations are the Same.  What was Under, On or Around the Bridge Depends on the Circumstances and how Many Options there are to Choose from, just as Sometimes the Choice is Black and White, Only One Way or the Other, and Other Times there are Many More Options than just Two.

Another Non-Bridge Analogy was Presented Later in which Two People Simply Walk Across to the Center of a Field and then Can Choice to Walk in Any Direction that they can Agree on (April 12, 12:02 AM).  If you Want more Detail, then Please do Go Back and Read the Earlier Comment Thread.

BB-Idaho also Added Thoughts about Negotiation & Compromise, Defining Terms (April 9, 4:02 PM, April 13, 3:59 PM) and Giving Examples Relating to Rewards and Bribes (Bribing a Wife, April 9, 4:02 PM and Bribing a Pet, April 11, 7:46 AM).

I will be Reviewing these Definitions in my Next Post, which is Going to be the Second Half of the Summary of the Previous Comment Thread.

Even though the Title of this Post includes the Phrase "Relationship Analogies" and the Title of the Next One is More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics, don't Think that this Post in not Also Meant to be about Politics, for the Whole Purpose of the Relationship Analogies was to Eventually Relate such Analogies to Politics.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Compromise vs. Gridlock

I was Recently Reading One of my Very Old Posts from May 4, 2009.  It is a Post that was Written in a Way that was a Little Confused and I Ended Up Adding a Comment to it that was more Clear.  Feel Free to Read the Old Post, Extremism vs. Moderation, An Introduction, yet what I Really Want you to Read Now is what my Current Thoughts are about what I should have Wrote, for here I am Two Years Later, Finally Clarifying.  Here is the Comment that I Added beneath that Post Late Last Night...

"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said.  Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.

"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.

"Yes, that Happened in 2009.

"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.

"It's Really not that Hard, though.  Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not.  To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.

"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...

"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'

"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.

"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed
in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.

"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said." 

I Look Forward to Your Comments.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Spiritaul Pause - Only God Can Change Hearts.

Since my Previous Post has Reached 41 Comments and I Often Try to Limit the Length of my Comment Threads to..., Oh, I don't Know.  I guess to 50..., And since some Time has Passed since I Last Posted anyway, it is Time for me to Post Again.

As I Pause Briefly from Politics, it is not as if I do not Know What I want to Post about Next.  I Imagine my Next Post after this One will be Based on the Last Link that was Posted in the Comment Section of my Previous Post, yet for some Reason I Feel the Need to Pause before I Continue with that Subject.

There are Still Things that Over Whelm me at Times and I am Gradually Learning how to Manage the Stress.  One Thing that I Keep Forgetting is the Need to Stop and Ask God for his Help, which I am Doing Right Now.  Sometimes it just Feels more Right to Pause Briefly from Politics and Say Something that is more Spiritual.

Funny.  I didn't Know that I was Going to be Posting what I am Actually Thinking about Right Now and yet this is the One that Feels Right to me and it is Something that I Wrote Earlier Today in the Comment Thread Below a Post at Someone Else's Blog.  The Subject was Sociology, Behaviorism, Psychology and Control and not Politics, yet at the End, I'm Going to also Make a Statement about Politics as well.  Whatever is not in Italics was Added Later for the Purpose of this Post.  Here's what I Wrote...

"I Find it Interesting that you are Criticizing Sociology and when I Think about Sociology, Especially that which is Connected to Behaviorism, I Find that I have Issues with it Myself and the Reason is because it is all about Control, that is the Controlling of People's Behaviors through Rewards and Punishments.

"The Problem is that Some People Simply can not be Controlled and the Reason Why is because there are People who are Willing to Make whatever Sacrifices Necessary for the Sake of what they Believe and they will Endure the Punishment and/or Lack of Reward for the Sake of those Beliefs.  This is the Reason why Most Psychologists (Non-Behaviorists) realize that it is Necessary to Change the Way People Think and not just the Way in which they Behave.  Only this can Result in a Change that will Actually Last.

"Changing Beliefs, though, is Difficult as Well.  In Christianity, we are Taught that it is God who Changes the Hearts of Men.  In Light of this, any Real Change has to Come from God, so the Best that any of us can do is just Submit to Him and Pray for those who are Caught up in an Error. 

"Neither Government, nor Sociology, nor even Psychology can Change the Hearts of Man.  Only God can do that."

These are the Sort of Spiritual Thoughts that Make me Wonder if even the Practice of Blogging About Politics is Worth it.  Though when I Originally Wrote this, it was about Sociology and Psychology, the Idea that it is God who Changes Hearts is also Connected to the Fruitlessness of Political Debate.  I don't know that Debate is Necessarily Fruitless, yet what I do Know is that if there is Any Chance at all that the Debate is not Entirely Fruitless, it is the Pausing and Focusing on God that will Make the Difference.

It is for This Reason that I Deliberately Slow Down my Blog and am not in a Hurry.